Yeah, but what does McCleveland know? Just another stuffed shirt.....

Sometimes I just wish I could fast forward to see these projects at their completion. I know we've had a lot of lakefront concepts presented in the past 30 years, but this one looks great. I was in Seattle five years ago and was blown away by their waterfront and kept thinking "Why can't we do this in Cleveland?". This latest design really makes me feel like I'll be able to stop asking myself that question.

completely agree..

I'm annoyed that the residential component of the waterfront plan often seems downplayed.  An earlier PD article (http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/11/mayor_jackson_tries_to_change.html) said "Drawings show 90 acres laced with offices, restaurants, shops and marinas."  Ummm..  what about apartments? 

 

Yes, there's been talk of studies to see if there's demand for housing in this area, but with a 96% downtown residential occupancy rate and waiting lists for residential buildings that are hundreds of people long, I think that study is a waste of money.  There's more demand downtown for residential than there is for offices, restaurants, shops or a marina.  I'd rather see 100 new apartments than 100 new boat slips.  (I'd like to see both)  More people living downtown would change the city's atmosphere quicker than anything else.  And there's demand for it!  But due to financing difficulties or whatever other roadblocks, we can't get stuff built fast enough.  At the rate we're going, the downtown population will reach 20,000 in 2037.  Too slow.

 

We came up with over $400 million to build a medical mart that most residents of the county will never enter.  We've spend millions on other projects like Gateway and the stadium.  I wish there was money like that to publicly subsidize downtown housing. 

 

Sorry for the rant.  To bring this back on topic, the lakefront should have a strong residential component.  I know Browns fans who'd move downtown just to be able to get a peak inside the stadium from their bedroom window.

 

Regardless of height, I agree that there's not nearly enough residential in the plan.  How perplexing that it takes study upon study to "prove" what's already crystal clear to anyone who lives here.  There aren't enough apartments in Cleveland, there aren't enough downtown, and there aren't enough on the lake.  Need.  More.  Any lakefront plan that ignores something so basic is a bad plan.

Something like Waterfront Place in Buffalo would be cool here--a nice mix of a residential tower (out of the landing slope of BKL) and low rise townhomes.

 

http://www.buffalorising.com/2010/07/sales-watch-waterfront-place.html

Is this a chicken and the egg type thing?  In order to build new apartments you need financing.  Looking at the Flats East Bank, it may be easier to start with office and hotel type destinations than housing.  Then you could add housing as an expansion of the original project.

In order to get the financing for the office piece, you need a large percentage of leases (think Nashville MM) so that is why the Browns/Cavs/Indians are saying they would be interested in putting in a sports hospital there.

 

So, to start a project from scratch to include housing you need a large company who needs space.  Space is built, with add on amenities.  Based on the popularity, financing further expansion is possible, which would include housing and expanded retail.

 

 

I will admit this is speculation / what I have learned from reading urban ohio for years.

How perplexing that it takes study upon study to "prove" what's already crystal clear to anyone who lives here.  There aren't enough apartments in Cleveland, there aren't enough downtown, and there aren't enough on the lake.  Need.  More.  Any lakefront plan that ignores something so basic is a bad plan.

 

You're missing the fact that even with downtown's occupancy rate at 96% or whatever, the average rent/sf is still stuck at a pretty low rate and isn't really climbing.  The only residential projects which are being financed & built right now are conversions.  And those undoubtedly have some public subsidy to get them off the starting line.  The rental rates per square foot are not high enough yet to justify new construction, regardless of subsidy.  On the lake or wherever.

Apartment development is pretty straightforward.  It's not made easier by office construction already existing at a site.  Developers will only build new apartments or renovate old spaces to put in apartments if they are convinced (and can convince their financing partners) that they can make a profit by doing so. 

Apartment development is pretty straightforward.  It's not made easier by office construction already existing at a site.  Developers will only build new apartments or renovate old spaces to put in apartments if they are convinced (and can convince their financing partners) that they can make a profit by doing so. 

 

And that part in parenthesis is why study after study needs to be done.  Financing partners don't give money on gut feelings.  There needs to be actual numbers behind the feelings in order for them to hand over those nice large bags with $ on them.

You're missing the fact that even with downtown's occupancy rate at 96% or whatever, the average rent/sf is still stuck at a pretty low rate and isn't really climbing.  The only residential projects which are being financed & built right now are conversions.  And those undoubtedly have some public subsidy to get them off the starting line.  The rental rates per square foot are not high enough yet to justify new construction, regardless of subsidy.  On the lake or wherever.

 

That's why government money is needed to subsidize the gap between market rate rents and rents needed for construction to make sense.  "But there's no government money..."  $450 million from a county sales tax increase to fund the medical mart/convention center, $100 million in the county's economic development fund, millions in new tax dollars from the casino.  The money is there, it's just a question of how our leaders are choosing to allocate it.

Cleveland Browns, city reach agreement on repairs

10:00 PM, Apr 4, 2012 

 

CLEVELAND -- The Cleveland Browns and the City of Cleveland announced today that the court case involving a contract to perform capital repairs at Cleveland Browns Stadium has been resolved.

 

Two competing bidders on the project have agreed to team up, allowing the work to go forward immediately.

 

"Today's agreement assures us that the work can be done quickly and at a reasonable cost," said Ken Silliman, Chief of Staff to Mayor Frank Jackson.

 

"The agreement also preserves the City's position on local participation that contractors are a reflection of our community."

 

The Cleveland Browns helped to facilitate an agreement between the City and the two contractors involved in the dispute so the vital repairs could begin immediately.

 

http://www.wkyc.com/news/article/239599/4/Cleveland-Browns-city-reach-agreement-on-repairs-

You're missing the fact that even with downtown's occupancy rate at 96% or whatever, the average rent/sf is still stuck at a pretty low rate and isn't really climbing.  The only residential projects which are being financed & built right now are conversions.  And those undoubtedly have some public subsidy to get them off the starting line.  The rental rates per square foot are not high enough yet to justify new construction, regardless of subsidy.  On the lake or wherever.

 

That's why government money is needed to subsidize the gap between market rate rents and rents needed for construction to make sense.  "But there's no government money..."  $450 million from a county sales tax increase to fund the medical mart/convention center, $100 million in the county's economic development fund, millions in new tax dollars from the casino.  The money is there, it's just a question of how our leaders are choosing to allocate it.

 

what's the multiplier effect for using that subsidy to build residential?  As compared to the multiplier effect for medmart or casino, in terms of job creation or tax revenue, there's no comparison.... 

Cleveland already subsidizes new construction residential through tax abatement.

Medical Marts are wholly unproven... convention centers have a terrible track record as civic investments.  And as noted, the city already subsidizes residential all over the place, in more ways than one.  This is about choices.  Giving residential the short end of a lakefront development plan is a choice, and in my estimation, it's a bad one.     

^agreed.  Except subsidizing NEW CONSTRUCTION residential in downtown is a whole new animal.  Subsidizing some renovation/conversions is another thing

what's the multiplier effect for using that subsidy to build residential?  As compared to the multiplier effect for medmart or casino, in terms of job creation or tax revenue, there's no comparison.... 

 

How do you know the multiplier effect of the Medcart or casino when neither have been built yet?

it's elementary my friend.  Study Economic Development 101.  Residential construction has zero multiplier effect.  There is income from construction work but that's it.  Where's the long term job creation? 

I must have missed something... when did this "multiplier effect" become such an issue?  I don't see how you can have long term job creation with a glaring residential deficiency.  As for subsidizing new residential, the city does that constantly and on a large scale.  Doling out public money for residential construction is nothing new.  The only difference being sought here a more urbanist mindset in how the money's doled out.  For starters, a stronger residential component in the current lakefront plan.  The last thing downtown needs is more small shops to fill.  There are dozens sitting empty right now.     

I must have missed something... when did this "multiplier effect" become such an issue?  I don't see how you can have long term job creation with a glaring residential deficiency.  As for subsidizing new residential, the city does that constantly and on a large scale. 

 

I think you're reaching.  Please explain this glaring residential deficiency.  Even though current occupancy rates are pegged at 95+, the overall rental rate/sf for downtown has stayed steady.  It hasn't climbed enough to even come close to justifying new construction of residential.  With or without subsidy.  You keep ignoring this fact.  As much as people who study the lakefront want to say "Yes!  We need residential here!"  There are no market studies or analysis that justify that.  No current or recent projects which support it.  "If you build it, they will come" doesn't hold true here.  And it won't be anytime soon.

 

And the multiplier effect has always been in play for Cleveland or anyone evaluating public subsidy.  Look hard enough and you can find the analysis of each of the projects I mentioned and the projected multiplier effect for the public subsidy contribution.

And with that, please take the 'multiplier effect' discussion to an appropriate thread or to PM. Thanks.

Cleveland envisions a floating office park to lure the creative class

Published: Tuesday, April 24, 2012, 8:00 PM    Updated: Tuesday, April 24, 2012, 9:15 PM

  By Robert L. Smith, The Plain Dealer

 

Jon Stahl, a flip-flop wearing CEO, stood on the deck of his future office on a recent afternoon and drank in a boater's view of downtown Cleveland.

 

"Being on the water. In a boat. Downtown. We love it," said Stahl, co-founder of a young and growing software company called LeanDog.

One deck below him, construction workers were tearing out the guts of the former Hornblower's restaurant to turn a 19th century steamship into bright, open offices for computer programmers. The $600,000 project will create the headquarters of LeanDog and its collaborator, Arras Keathley, a marketing firm moving two dozen jobs up from Akron.

 

The two companies will soon put more than 50 workers afloat off downtown. They hope that others will join them in a new, nautical business park that could lend a lakefront city another drawing card.

 

The "office harbor" is a small but striking piece of Cleveland's $2 billion, 90-acre lakefront development plan, one envisioned to entice the creative class. Architectural renderings depict a small fleet of businesses moored just west of Burke Lakefront Airport, a frisbee toss from the USS Cod World War II submarine.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/04/cleveland_envisions_a_floating_1.html

Thanks for all the articles you just posted Murray Hill!

Cleveland envisions a floating office park to lure the creative class

Published: Tuesday, April 24, 2012, 8:00 PM    Updated: Tuesday, April 24, 2012, 9:15 PM

  By Robert L. Smith, The Plain Dealer

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/04/cleveland_envisions_a_floating_1.html

 

Awesome article. One thing that should be underlined is the $180,000 vacant building grant that helped make the renovation possible. Very cool.

 

Could a houseboat community be in the cards eventually?

Cool idea if it made being in Cleveland more attractive, but at the same time it seems like something that would happen if there was some sort of shortage of office space downtown, which is hardly the case.   

 

I guess it would be adding a type product that isnt otherwise available though?   

^Yeah, I think it's more about creating a unique product that can differentiate itself from the gobs of available office space.  It's going to feel pretty isolated down there until more of the proposed lakefront stuff comes on line...whenever that might me.

 

As unpleasant as it is to be outside on the lakefront in the winter (and much of the fall and spring too, when cold), I think it's actually an amazing landscape to look out at from inside. The only time I've been to the Rock Hall was during a crazy April snow storm and it was mesmerizing watching the wind-driven waves crashing on the harbor walls from a warm interior. The walk to the rapid sucked through.

Seems like some disagreement here...

 

All I want is some frikin residential on the Lakefront, that's it.  I don't care if anything else gets built.  Residential will create the needed neighborhood and core of new life of people there 24 hrs a day instead of 6-12 hrs a day.

 

Cleveland's lakefront approach backward

By KEViN PATRICK MURPHY

4:30 am, April 30, 2012

 

 

Most recently, Mayor Frank Jackson has proposed to remake the downtown Lake Erie shoreline with shops, restaurants, offices and a hotel — at a cost of approximately $2 billion. City officials expect most of the money to come from the private sector.

 

Cleveland's backwards approach to encouraging investment has always been the fundamental flaw of its lakefront revitalization efforts. Good development is tied to good infrastructure. New York came to the realization that public investment in public space stimulates private sector real estate development. Baltimore grew to appreciate the power of exercising its governmental authority to support private development projects.

 

Cleveland, on the other hand, has repeatedly attempted to function as a private developer, rather than pursue development partnerships with the private sector and other public-sector entities. To effectively develop the downtown shoreline, a lakefront development corporation — comprised of representatives appointed by the city of Cleveland, Cuyahoga County, the state of Ohio and key private sector and nonprofit players — must be established in Cleveland. Toronto's waterfront development corporation should be used as the prototype.

 

 

It would be irresponsible to imply that lakefront revitalization alone can solve the major underlying problems that Cleveland currently faces, but it is an important step in what must become a regional growth strategy. By taking immediate steps to form a lakefront development corporation, and taking those steps with a sense of urgency, Northeast Ohio can begin to build towards a better future. To be sure, Northeast Ohio has seen its share of disappointment over the last several decades, but disappointment is not justification for capitulation.

 

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20120430/SUB1/304309991

 

^ Some of what he says makes sense.... but I don't think the State has any vested interest in Cleveland's success whereas Ontario does think of Toronto as more than a step-child; that makes it difficult for a Lakefront plan to get $500 million from the state.

the needed steps to provide a foundation for developments, are out of the hands of the city and county and lie within the massive ODOT complex in Columbus.

 

The reconfiguration of the route 2 though downtown, and the making connections from the bluff to the lake are the basics needed to make the area more attractive for development.

 

I personally believe the main avenue viaduct from west 6th to east 9th must be removed and made into a boulevard, to facilitate the reconnection of the lake to downtown.

 

IMHO.

I'm with you biker16. If you look at the traffic counts, the lowest numbers for the Shoreway are between West 6th and East 9th.

 

ODOT claims that it will do what an affected community asks of it, except that it will consider an urbanist's vision, scratching, kicking and screaming and throw every roadblock possible because it has no idea what an urbanist vision is. Indeed, that center-city resident who walks, bikes or takes transit to work, shopping, nights out on the town etc. runs counter to everything that ODOT is about -- collecting gas tax revenues and spending them in the only way allowed by Article XII Sect. 5A of the Ohio Constitution.

 

So if Cleveland wants the Shoreway to be less of a barrier between its front doorstep to the lakefront, Mayor Jackson is going to have to be as brave as Cincinnati Mayor Mallory has been in building the streetcar.

I'm with you biker16. If you look at the traffic counts, the lowest numbers for the Shoreway are between West 6th and East 9th.

 

ODOT claims that it will do what an affected community asks of it, except that it will consider an urbanist's vision, scratching, kicking and screaming and throw every roadblock possible because it has no idea what an urbanist vision is. Indeed, that center-city resident who walks, bikes or takes transit to work, shopping, nights out on the town etc. runs counter to everything that ODOT is about -- collecting gas tax revenues and spending them in the only way allowed by Article XII Sect. 5A of the Ohio Constitution.

 

So if Cleveland wants the Shoreway to be less of a barrier between its front doorstep to the lakefront, Mayor Jackson is going to have to be as brave as Cincinnati Mayor Mallory has been in building the streetcar.

 

More ammunition for the overall conversion from Clifton to I 90.  This should be a path to Cleveland's future.

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2012/06012012/index.php

 

City Planning Commission

Agenda for June 1, 2012

 

Ordinance No. 744-12(Ward 3/Councilmember Cimperman): Determining the method of making the public improvement of constructing a transient marina at the East 9th Street pier and associated support facilities and amenities; authorizing the Director of Port Control to enter into one or more contracts for the making of the improvement; authorizing design services, construction management and other related services; acquiring any real property and easements necessary for right-of-way purposes; to enter into various written standard purchase and requirement contracts; authorizing one or more professional consultants for marina management services; authorizing submerged land leases; authorizing the Director to apply for and accept gifts, grants, and other funding from public and private entities, including the gift or loan of equipment; authorizing the Director to fix and charge docking fees; for a period of five years with one five-year option to renew, exercisable through additional legislative authority.

I'm with you biker16. If you look at the traffic counts, the lowest numbers for the Shoreway are between West 6th and East 9th.

 

The continued growth of the Flats East Bank project is going to drive some type of change to the Shoreway connection also.

Man, I love the Cleve ... And my beloved St. Clair Superior :)

 

urban sheep grazing could be coming to a vacant lot near you

Lee Chilcote, FreshWater

Thursday, June 07, 2012

 

Drivers traveling along I-90 near E. 55th could experience mild whiplash as they crane their necks to see the sheep grazing on the roadside this summer. It's not the most common sight along the lakefront, and the story behind it is no less unusual.

 

Michael Fleming first heard of the idea when he was studying Urban Planning at the Levin College of Urban Affairs at Cleveland State University. The mayor of Curitiba, Brazil had used sheep to mow the city's vast parkland, he found out.

 

"They brought in shepherds for parkland because it was cheaper than using machines," says Fleming. "With large amounts of land, it just makes sense."

 

... More available at http://www.freshwatercleveland.com/devnews/urbanshepherds060712.aspx

 

Not a major thing but still important none the less.....

 

Massive machine to soon begin building sewage treatment tunnel in Cleveland

 

CLEVLEAND - Let the drilling begin! On Monday morning, crews with the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (NEORSD) began lowering "Mackenzie," a 320,000 pound, 500-foot long boring machine, in place to drill a new three-mile long sewer tunnel.

 

Once completed, the tunnel is expected to hold 52 million gallons of storm and wastewater before that water is treated and sent into Lake Erie.

 

"After it's in place, Mackenzie will be attached to the main drive unit of the tunnel boring machine and then it will be moved into a starter tunnel, before being ready for operation," explained Doug Gabriel, Construction Program Manager for NEORSD in a news release. That tunnel boring machine will dig about 50-75 feet per day. Using more conventional drilling methods, that amount of distance would take about a week. Not only does the tunnel-boring machine move dirt, it also builds the pipe as it goes through the 27-foot diameter tunnel.

 

The Euclid Creek Tunnel will start in Bratenahl, south of Interstate 90, and continue northeast to the district's Easterly Wastewater Treatment Plant. There, the tunnel will continue under Lake Erie for about 3,000 feet and pass under the shoreline near Green Creek at E. 152nd Street. The tunnel will then head east, following Lake Shore Boulevard and Nottingham Road, and end at St. Clair Avenue.

 

Read more: http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_news/cleveland_metro/massive-machine-to-soon-begin-building-sewage-treatment-tunnel-in-cleveland#ixzz1xXcJCc8x

 

 

As long as it's here, can it also burrow a couple of subway tubes below Euclid Avenue?? :-P

As long as it's here, can it also burrow a couple of subway tubes below Euclid Avenue?? :-P

Boy don't I wish!!

Burke is a no go.  Seriously... forget about it.  I don't think people have any idea how chemically polluted that place is.  People can't even do runway repair work there without having to wear a hazmat suit. It really is a toxic waste dump.

Burke is all landfill.  It was built with the same dredgings they are planning on using for the new facility, and the ones on Dike 14.  Why would it be any different? 

 

Burke was not just river dredgings like Dike 14.  Burke was also a landfill.  People don't even know what was put in there or where, this area was created pre EPA.  It is on the list of most contaminated Cuyahoga County properties by state and federal agencies.  There was a lot of tests done in the early to mid 90's and parts of the area were found to be "toxic".  Thus why people have to legitimately wear hazmat suits to do just about any type of work on that land.

 

Reasons pursuing Burke at the present time is "dumb":

 

1.  Due to the contaminated nature of the grounds, I have heard costs to clean the contaminated soil are astronomical.  As in truly, truly astronomical.

 

2.  Unlike Meigs Field in Chicago, Burke was built almost entirely with FAA funds in the early 60's.  Meigs was built in the 40's by the city of chicago.  So when Daley bulldozed x's in some runways, the FAA didn't have much of a say.  Granted they were pissed, Chicago should have given 30 days notice to closing their airport, but it was their choice.  Hence they had to pay a $33,000 fine.  Closing Burke is not just Cleveland's call, it's also the FAA who built it.  And we need the FAA money that flows into Hopkins a lot more than a city like Chicago does.  If we "pull a daley" and bulldoze the runway it could have serious implications in regards to the funding Cleveland recieves from the FAA.  We'd also have to repay all the money the FAA used to build it, which I'm pretty sure we don't have lying around.

 

3. Massive connectivity issues.  I think sometimes people around here tend to overlook just how disconnected we are from our "lakefront".  Well, there is a reason the city was founded on the banks of the Cuyahoga and not on the "shores" of lake erie... We don't have a natural lakefront.  Our lakefront was a 50 foot cliff that started right behind city hall.  Most of the land comprised of what is now known as our lakefront was dirt brought in by rail cars from excavating land in the downtown area.  The terminal tower provided over 1,000 rail cars full of dirt alone.  And that rail line as we all know is still there and is still very active.... at the bottom of the 50 foot drop.  Then there is that little thing known as the shoreway that gets in the way.  And about midway through the Burke land is the shoreway / 90 interchange that takes up quite a bit of land.  And on the Burke side, there isn't a single connection from that land to the city save East 9th street.  And even if there were once you get past east 18th street, you'd be connecting that land to light industrial land, not exactly the most beautiful or populated areas of the city.

 

The problems and challenges with Burke are enormous.  I don't know why AT THIS POINT, we are even wasting our time.  It can be a great asset as an airport... and in the meantime we've got ONE HUNDRED AND TEN ACRES of lakefront land at the port.  Land that is already connected to the Warehouse District (the most populated neighborhood of downtown), the river, the central business district.  110 acres.  That's practically a third of the size of downtown proper.  It's going to keep us busy for quite some time.  And contrary to what Mr. Morrison has to say (whom definitely does not get along with the administration), disolving your port and giving it away to far away places isn't regionalism.  That's just giving your port (and most of it's economic benefits) away.  I'm guessing Chris Warren and Chris Ronayne, the two biggest proponents of Regionalism you will find, also don't see this as such.  And as for just absolving the port and just "developing" the whole thing all at once rather than phasing it in over 25-30 years, well I'm sorry but that is just assinine.  I mean really.  We're talking about an area roughly a third of the size of downtown.  Who pays for that?  And what happens when you build tens of thousands of residences all at once?  How long do those places sit empty, what does that oversaturation do to the rest of the downtown?  How many millions of square feet of office space do you think downtown can absorb right now?  And saying things like "not doing anything until 2035" is patently false.  Plans call for the first phase to be worked in over the next five years.  The bottom line is that like it or not and as frustrating as it may be.  Phasing this development in over the next 20-30 years IS the best way to go about developing a parcel this large.  It will keep demand and interest up.

 

Came across this great post and thought it would be nice to bring up again, just to dismiss any discussion about developing burke.

 

It sounds like it's non sequitur unless someone pursues an EPA brownfield remediation grant, but I get the impression that an inordinate amount of NEO is brownfield.

Not a major thing but still important none the less.....

 

Massive machine to soon begin building sewage treatment tunnel in Cleveland

For someone that rides a bike down Lakeshore everyday this is huge. Not so much the tunnel as the fact that they'll have to fix the street when they're done digging holes in it. 

Is the pedestrian bridge traversing the North Coast Harbor which was supposed to start construction in late summer this year still on track? Wondering if anyone had some inside information

It was mentioned at a City design review meeting a few months back that the transient marina was starting this summer and pedestrian bridge was going through engineering this summer and should begin construction late spring 2013.  Haven't heard anything since.

^Except maybe the pedestrian bridge crossing the mouth of North Coast Harbor (can't remember the status of that), I don't think any part of the latest Lakefront plan has ever been funded or announced as an actual project (as opposed to just a plan).

 

Here's some info about what the Port Authority plans to do if its levy passes, including construction of a parking garage and pedestrian bridge to connect the Mall to North Coast Harbor.  Unfortunately, looks like a pretty uninspired scheme (much more blah than shown in the master plan), but not sure where we'd get the money for something better. Something kind of sad that one of our "rewards" for increasing downtown activity is having to spend public money on a new parking garage.

 

Port of Cleveland's soon-to-be requested tax levy could help transform our waterfronts: Steve Litt

http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2012/07/port_of_clevelands_soon-to-be.html

 

 

Don't know how i feel about this yet  :wtf: ... it's good to see private support, i just like highrises  :evil: :evil:

 

Geis Cos. float plan for lakefront office project, on 20 city-owned acres near Burke Lakefront Airport

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/08/geis_cos_float_plan_for_lakefr.html#incart_river_default

wow...  thought I would see positive comments...  oh well...

 

new browns owner jimmy haslam meeting with new england patriot owner to learn the nfl biz...  hope he takes a look at patriot place and supports the development plan around cleveland browns stadium...

I imagine there are some fairly strict height restrictions for that land

 

Some interesting sidenotes to that story, including potential plans for a 53 slip marina at NCH

No highrises will be built because of airspace restrictions given how close it is to the airport

And the land it is on, whether the airport was there or not.

And the land it is on, whether the airport was there or not.

 

Agreed.  Isn't everything beyond North Pointe landfill?  It would be difficult to build major highrises, but I don't doubt we could have some medium density development there.

 

Two questions (even though I know Burke won't be closed):

(1) How much would the FAA fees be to close the airport?  I've heard ranges from $5-100 million.

(2) Couldn't we be creative with Burke?  As in, first, change the name from Burke Lakefront to Burke.  Then expand the airport, maybe on the otherside of the highway, although finding such land would be difficult.  Then, remove the part of the airport that is on the lakefront.  Thus, Burke airport still exists, so it we wouldn't have to pay the FAA fees and we'd have the part that's on the lake available to develop.

The full extent of the airport land is extremely far away and disconnected from downtown. If anything, if it were to close, I would rather have that land taken over by the port, freeing up their far better positioned land. I still wish we could give up wendy park though :P

 

But yeah, highrises will never happen. Its not feasible.

I honestly prefer low-density here. Downtown offices/streets need to keep the views to the Lake (plus the air restrictions). I see row houses there, done with Amsterdam-like density.. but that's just me.

 

It doesnt have to be all density all the time. Just like midtown.. buildings can work here if they are planned well. This is still a pretty dense development, and if its vacant land currently, its simply adding density to the existing. So its actually making the area more dense.

 

Get it built. But add boat slips, and some canals, and a few bike paths, please. ;)

@KJP, I understand the concern. I have those same issues with this. I'm not crazy about the location.

 

As far as "why not add tenants in the CBD?", it appears to me that this project is not meant to appeal to companies in or who would want to be in the CBD. It seems to me, from everything I've read, that this project is more likely geared toward sprawling companies who would want a sprawling campus. So this is targeting a different market. Apparently Geis is negotiating with potential tenants already. I think that the tenants he's negotiating with aren't companies that would want a big, nice, shiny office tower in the CBD. I just don't think that's who this is going after. It seems to me that this project is designed to go after companies who most likely wouldn't be downtown without it.

 

I found it interesting that David Browning (I think) said in both the PD and Crain's Cleveland Business article something along the lines of "had this been ready when Eaton or American Greetings were in the market, they may have chosen this". That statement there tells you EXACTLY who this is going after. I can't help but feel a little giddy at the prospect of stealing at least one (I'm not greedy, lol) big company from the suburbs. That's what it seems like the purpose of this is. So, like you, I'm not crazy about the location & I'd like to see more office towers in the CBD. But the companies that would be in this project likely would have NO interest in being in the CBD without this project.

 

Case in point: (from the PD article) "It really is benefiting from the synergies with the airport, and there are a lot of companies that like to have offices near a regional airport, for private jets," said Scott Wolstein, who is developing the Flats East Bank project, which includes an office tower and hotel near the Cuyahoga River. "When I looked at the city's plan for waterfront development, I thought this component of the project made a lot of sense. I felt that this was the easiest and the likeliest to get done."

 

That sounds like a target demographic of sprawling companies, to me. Not companies that would want to be in the CBD currently. And in that case, if that is the case, then this is a positive because its a net sum gain. I'm not crazy about the location or the fact that its not new office towers, but by accepting the fact that this is going after companies who would likely have NO interest in being in downtown Cleveland without this, the possibilities kind of excites me a bit.